Room for review

A little light on the night? A good review supplies context, not just verdict

CATHERINE Zeta-Jones is meaty fodder for the press. Topics include her latest film, whether she still looks fabulous for her age, or an occasional visits to Wales. But in December last year she hit the headlines for a different reason. Zeta-Jones made her Broadway debut as Desiree Armfeldt in a revival of Stephen Sondheim’s A Little Night Music. This is Trevor Nun’s production that premiered at the excellent Menier Chocolate Factory in London’s Southbank in November 2008.

Zeta-Jones’s debut across the pond caused ripples of excitement here, with the usual pictures of “our Catherine” appearing on the front of newspapers, including The Western Mail. That paper also ran an article on the decidedly mixed reviews Zeta-Jones had received, including quotes from US critics writing for such titles as the New York Times and New York Daily News.

This is significant not because it corroborates the universal view that like sex, celebrities sell papers, but because it raises some interesting questions about reviews, their purpose and positioning in the press, including the Welsh media. This is especially so given that print media in particular are finding it difficult to pay for reviews. There was a time when a critic was as well known as the star of the play, and a review held so much sway that it could make or break a play or a playwright. Think of Kenneth Tynan the theatre critic, who was supportive of playwrights such as John Osbourne and Samuel Backett or Egon Ronay in the culinary world.

One of Harold Pinter’s best-known plays, The Birthday Party, was initially both a commercial and critical disaster. Harold Hobson, The Sunday Times’s influential critic is widely credited with having provided a boon for Pinter when he wrote:

Deliberately, I am willing to risk whatever reputation I have as a judge of plays by saying that The Birthday Party is … First [Class]; and that Pinter, on the evidence of his work, possesses the most original, disturbing and arresting talent in theatrical London…. Mr Pinter and The Birthday Party, despite their experiences last week, will be heard of again. Make a note of their names.

Dame Judi Dench allegedly called Daily Telegraph critic Charles Spencer ‘a little shit’ after he wrote a review of the actress in Madame de Sade in 2009.

In the UK, theatre critics are traditionally invited to a press night. This is a one-off event where the body of the audience consists of ordinary theatre bookers. But it will also include a list of invited critics; the venue’s staff; management or agents of the cast as well as their family and friends.

In many ways then the audience is as ‘staged’ as the production itself. Family and friends will respond in a different way differ from independent members of an audience – with the former being more be more supportive. The introduction of the so called New York way of reviewing over five nights with a specified embargo date may give reviewers more time to develop their thoughts rather than have to rush out of the auditorium and fire off 350 words. But is the critic’s job to reflect the views of the audience or give a report of his or her informed opinion?

In a recent article in Welsh-language magazine Barn Sioned Williams discusses the lively debate surrounding Theatr Genedlaethol’s latest production of Meic Povey’s Tyner yw’r Lleuad Heno and the response to it.

Williams laments the dearth in of critiquing in Wales which she says is a fundamental weakness in our culture. She puts part of the blame on a lack of editorial space for reviews in Wales outside of academia and states that it could be due in part to the fact that we don’t have a daily Welsh-language newspaper.

It is certainly true that in Wales we do not have a great history of arts reviewers. And getting London-based journalists to come on a two hour train journey to review a production in Cardiff is nigh on impossible. But putting the blame on the fact that Y Byd didn’t happen is missing the point.

We are no longer in a world where print media is king. Journalism is being repositioned online. Restaurants, hotels, books, films as well as theatre productions can be reviewed online by anyone, anywhere at any time – and at no cost. Will omniscient citizen-critics provide a more rounded opinion than a paid-for critic at a press night? The more likely outcome is a snapshot of a production with reactions posted online in a matter of minutes. And, of course, the risk is is that incisive voices in this medium will simply get lost amongst the noise, and critics and reviewers will be devalued.

But one voice has stood out in recent months; that of the West End Whingers. Duo ‘Andrew’ and ‘Phil’ write online reviews in a quirky manner with their tongues very firmly in their cheeks. The Whingers have quickly established a niche for themselves. They do not get paid for their reviews, but judging by the comments on their website they are read by both ordinary audiences and theatre critics alike, and have gained credence very quickly. They may be unorthodox and informal but they are informed.

Being informed is key. Reviews should give context, as well as a feel for the evening and the reviewers’ opinion. While the internet means that citizen-reviewers can make their opinions as widely accessible as possible, it will simply become a water-cooler conversation unless the opinion is informed. We can all hold forth about last night’s TV or this morning’s latest scandal. Immediacy and freshness are important. For added value, however, an informed review gives real food for thought.